June 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [P2P-F] Pdf - OECD study into "Future Global Shocks"
by Michel Bauwens 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

thanks Dante, Michel On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < dante.monson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Merci Gael ! > > Je le partage avec Michel : > > http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/44/46889922.pdf > > excerpt : > > *" This report is part of a broader OECD study into --Future Global Shocks, > examples of which could include a further failure of the global financial > system, large-scale pandemics, escape of toxic substances resulting in > wide-spread long-term pollution, and long-term weather or > volcanic conditions inhibiting transport links across key intercontinental > routes. "* > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gael > Date: 2011/6/29 > > > Cybersecurity OECD > > http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/44/46889922.pdf > > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: [-empyre-] The Commons
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: linda carroli <lcarroli(a)optusnet.com.au> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM Subject: [-empyre-] The Commons To: soft_skinned_space <empyre(a)gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au> Final text. All texts available online starting from here: http://placing.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/discussion-biennials-plus-and-minus/ The Commons Taking cues from the examples and critics cited here, the idea of the commons has emerged as a networked space of creative and generative possibility and risk. To recover is to reclaim. In shaping the commons, Jay Walljasper states that we "recognise some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all. The commons are the things that we inherit and create jointly, and that will (hopefully) last for generations to come. The commons consists of gifts of nature such as air, oceans and wildlife as well as shared social creations such as libraries, public spaces, scientific research and creative works." http://www.onthecommons.org However, there's never just one commons - the commons itself is multiple and complex, in process and becoming. Artists actively keep the commons alive in the face of all kinds of opposition, censorship and antagonism. So what kind of art and art event is integral to this becoming or emergence? Several essays in Empires, Ruins + Networks: The Transcultural Agenda in Art, edited by Scott McQuire and Nikos Papastergiadis, also explore the possibility of a new network of global cultural dialogue and the construction of a global common. What I see happening in post-disaster work of the three examples cited earlier is a sense of the 'becoming commons' emerging from ruins and loss in a situation of what Ross Gibson might describe as 'changefulness'. It's what I am inclined to think of as practice based, as 'changescaping' (work in progress at http://placing.wordpress.com/changescaping) How do we reconcile the sometimes exclusive and exclusionary cultural practices with this call for 'the commons' and emergence? Whose responsibility is it to do the bridging (politics, art or, as Papastergiadis proposes, the "politics of art"), generating those relationships or draw those connections? What should we risk? The very idea - the possibility, the assumption - of the Biennial itself. Ultimately, there's a question of governance and stewardship. As Brenson says, "we have to talk about art in ways in which everyone has something to lose". If critical art, as McQuire and Papastergiadis write, "increasingly take an active role in constituting new social relationships" - or as Richard Rorty proposes, "speaks differently" - curators have a pivotal role to play in cultivation and caring (curare), politics and poetics. We all have a role to play in the poiesis of the commons. Thanks so much ... look forward to your comments. Cheers Linda _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre(a)lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre

1 0

Autonomous regions Around Europe and the World ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

Other then Iceland - though Iceland is a country by itself - , * * *Where to go if and when the non democratically sovereign<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty>government of the Treaty of Lisbon becomes increasingly powerful and/or limiting potential for p2p alternatives ?* Latest strengthening of its powers being economic ( example : budgets need to be revised by the EU Council and Commission ). List of special status regions within EU : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_their_rel… Aland : ( map )<http://maps.google.be/maps?q=lemland&hl=en&sll=60.146974,20.335693&sspn=3.0…> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land Autonomy of Åland See also: Special member state territories and their relations with the EU<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_their_rel…> The autonomous status of the islands was affirmed by a decision made by the League of Nations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations> in 1921 following the Åland crisis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis>. It was reaffirmed within the treaty admitting Finland to the European Union<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union>. By law, Åland is politically neutral and entirely demilitarised, and residents are exempt from conscription<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription> to the Finnish Defence Forces<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces>. The islands were granted extensive autonomy by the Parliament of Finland<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Finland> in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland of 1920, which was later replaced by new legislation by the same name in 1951 and 1991<http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1991/en19911144.pdf> . In connection with Finland's admission to the European Union<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union>, a protocol was signed concerning the Åland Islands that stipulates, among other things, that provisions of theEuropean Community Treaty<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_Treaty> shall not force a change of the existing restrictions for foreigners (i.e., persons who do not enjoy "home region rights" *(hembygdsrätt)* in Åland) to acquire and hold real property or to provide certain services, implying a recognition of a separate nationality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality> .

2 1

On how Wall Street won (Rolling Stone)
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

http://www.rollingstone.com/**politics/blogs/national-** affairs/jeff-madrick-on-how-**wall-street-won-and-america-**lost-20110624<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/jeff-madrick-on…> ( thanks to Erminio for the link ) Jeff Madrick on How Wall Street Won and America Lost POSTED: JUNE 24, 3:04 PM ET | *By* JULIAN BROOKES In his latest book, *Age of Greed*<http://knopf.knopfdoubleday.com/2011/05/31/age-of-greed-by-jeff-madrick/>, former*New York Times* economic columnist Jeff Madrick tells how Wall Street triumphed and America paid the price. It's the story of how, starting in the 1970s, right-wing economics – a mystical cult centered on small government, low taxes and financial deregulation – and human greed teamed up to produce not shared prosperity but obscene economic inequality and financial instability, through the ideas and doings of a bipartisan roster of politicians, financiers, and economists, some obscure, others prominent (hello, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers!). We recently got him on the phone to talk about the triumph of finance and the decline of America in our age of greed. *In the book you say the roots of our economic troubles are in the 1970s. What happened in those years? * The American people turned against government, and the catalyst was the confusing and painful period of high unemployment and high inflation that struck harshly in 1973 and didn't really subside until 1980-81. *And right-wing politicians and economists blamed government.* The right wing claimed the government had become too big, that deficits caused the problem, and that the Federal Reserve had allowed the money supply to run amok. And this idea got ingrained in the public imagination and in the media. America began to doubt government, and that opened the door for business to abuse regulation and change regulation, a chance for right-wing politicians to get more power. *But you point out in the book that government wasn’t all that large at the time.* Government wasn’t very big, and federal budget deficits were much *smaller, *as a proportion of GDP, under Carter than they were under Ronald Reagan, when inflation was falling. *But the idea took hold anyway that government was the problem and deregulated markets the solution. And Milton Friedman was the big intellectual force behind this view.* Yes. He started out as something of a New Dealer but became a right-wing advocate of the idea that the free market will solve almost all social problems. He thought all you had to do was control money, and there was no way you could really affect the unemployment rate. He was very articulate, especially in journalism and in debates, and his simplistic way of thinking captured minds and hearts at a time of enormous confusion, in the 1970s. *And meanwhile, the financial industry was starting to develop new kinds of securities, derivatives and so on, that would change the nature of investing.* Right. And nobody in Washington started talking about regulating these derivatives. On the contrary, Jimmy Carter - the first really conservative Democrat in economic matters - was very much in favor of deregulation. *Reagan and Bush continued the trend toward deregulation, obviously, but so did Clinton.* Clinton played the game and made matters even worse. His treasury secretaries, Lloyd Bentsen and then Robert Rubin, really believed that Wall Street had the answers – that if we give them their head they will create prosperity in America. They also knew that Wall Street is a place Democrats can get campaign financing. Republicans had lots of other areas of business sewn up, and the Democrats went for entertainment, Silicon Valley, and finance. *So let's turn to the consequences.* The consequence was a misallocation of capital for 40 years. In the 1980s, the S&Ls were deregulated. They made absurd investments for which they had to be bailed out. That's when the corporate takeover movement got crazy, financed by banks and junk bonds, which in turn received tax benefits because the interest was deductible. I think the evidence shows the takeovers mostly wasted money. And then the high-tech fantasies of the 1990s, the WorldComs and Enrons, the enormous accounting frauds, and finally all that wasted money in housing. *Wouldn't free-market types say you have to allow finance to make these mistakes in order to get the benefits of their good investments and of overall growth?* Well, but what happened over this period? There were only a few years here and there where productivity grew rapidly. Capital investment was weak as a proportion of GDP for the most part, except for a few years here and there. And wages as we know basically stagnated. So no, the benefits did not outweigh the costs; we've had enormous waste and then a failure of public investment because taxes have been so absurdly low. *What do you have in mind when you say "failure of public investment"?* A lack of investment across the board – in energy, in new kinds of R&D, new kinds of manufacturing, general public investments in health care and transportation infrastructure, broadband and so forth. I think we're going to see America have a very hard time climbing back to serious prosperity in the future because of this lack of investment. *You call this period an "age of greed" but couldn't you as easily call it an "age of ideology" – of true believers?* Well, you always have to worry when ideology somehow lines your pockets. And I supposed some of them truly believed and some of them still truly believe, but clearly these were large-scale rationalizations, and as greed went unchecked, a climate of greed grew. And greed received approbation. Nobody began to question if you had gigantic houses anymore - once upon a time, people used to be a little bit embarrassed. Now, nobody was embarrassed. *What's your take on the Dodd-Frank financial reforms?* I think Dodd-Frank has some good points, but it's not going to be enforced well, and anyway they're still writing the rules. I think there's been way too much emphasis on "too big to fail." That's really not the issue; the issue is too much speculation, too much leverage and too much incentive to promote investment. *What would you like to see, regulation-wise?* I think we need seriously higher capital requirements, we have to prohibit certain kinds of securities that cannot be truly understood or are very easily given to speculation, like collateralized debt obligations. I think we probably have to limit what big institutions can do – not because of size but because of conflict of interest. And then I think we have to do something which is a no-no in America: We have to recognize that Wall Street is a monopoly, or at least an oligopoly. They get away with charging ridiculous fees – 7 percent for an IPO! – because there's no real competition. *Lastly, what do you make of the deficit fight in Washington?* I think austerity economics now are a disaster in Washington, because we may be facing another recession. We're going to get a very slow recovery – because of private debt, not so much public debt. And I think this argument about balancing the budget right away, right now, will prove to be one of the great follies of American history. *Related: *How Alan Greenspan Helped Wreck the Economy (Book Excerpt: Age of Greed)<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-alan-greens…>

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] more bio-urbanism?
by Michel Bauwens 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

perhaps an idea for a nice blog article while i'm on the road? On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:37 AM, james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2011/06/27/27venturebeat-appste… > > /J > > -- > Web: www.lifesized.net Phone:+31 (0)6 5244 6445 Twitter: @lifesized > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] distributed energy production
by Michel Bauwens 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

Dear George, thanks for this important paper! On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:59 AM, George Papanikolaou <georgepapani(a)gmail.com > wrote: > http://syr.academia.edu/**JanetMarsden/Papers/430835/** > DISTRIBUTED_GENERATION_**SYSTEMS_A_NEW_PARADIGM_FOR_**SUSTAINABLE_ENERGY<http://syr.academia.edu/JanetMarsden/Papers/430835/DISTRIBUTED_GENERATION_S…> > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: [fcf_discussion] Civil Society Workshop Before the Next Digital Assembly
by Michel Bauwens 27 Jun '11

27 Jun '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Javier Ruiz <javier(a)openrightsgroup.org> Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:30 PM Subject: [fcf_discussion] Civil Society Workshop Before the Next Digital Assembly To: edri-members(a)mailman.edri.org, fcforum_discussion(a)list.fcforum.net, communia-associates(a)lists.communia-association.org Dear friends The first European Digital Assembly that took place in Brussels two weeks ago showed that there is a wealth of activity in this field in Europe. However, we felt that the effort could have been more productive and engaging from the perspective of civil society. The assembly does provide an interesting space to potentially make our voices heard, and the European Commission clearly sees it as a space for accountability to their stakeholders (this word was repeated around a hundred times!). Although there was a semblance of balanced participation in many parallel thematic workshops, it was unclear what were the key issues, what recommendations would be made, and importantly how would these be followed up. In the afternoons, most of the larger plenary panels were dominated by politicians and businesses, culminating in the appalling comments about the demise of privacy by the Belgian minister for Economy and Innovation. We think that if we are to participate again in this space, we need to be better prepared to intervene in the assembly as civil society. In order to do this Open Rights Group would like to propose a one day preparatory workshop the day before the next Digital Assembly. This workshop would dissect the programme for the assembly and allow civil society organisations and interested individuals to examine the issues and enhance their participation. Ideally, this workshop should include groups working on privacy, data and the civil liberties end and those working on the cultural aspects, but it could go beyond these networks and engage other participants in the assembly. This could include groups working on disability, gender and local democracy, to name a few of the themes of the assembly. This is a very preliminary proposal to hear what you think. If enough people believe this is a good idea Open Rights Group can help organise, run and fundraise, but we will need other organisations to commit to make it happen as well. Best, Javier ----- +info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum_discussion ---- -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: [fcf_discussion] Will OECD serve Hollywood against our Freedoms?
by Michel Bauwens 27 Jun '11

27 Jun '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net <jz(a)laquadrature.net> Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:05 PM Subject: [fcf_discussion] Will OECD serve Hollywood against our Freedoms? To: fcforum_discussion(a)list.fcforum.net La Quadrature du Net - For immediate release Permanent link: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-oecd-serve-hollywood-against-our-freedo… Will OECD serve Hollywood against our Freedoms? *** Paris, June 27th, 2011 – The OECD countries are finalizing a communiqué about the future of the Internet. The outcome could either be a text favourable to citizens' fundamental freedoms, or a push towards more repression and private policing of the Internet, in line with the ACTA agreement, the G8's conclusions and EU copyright strategy. *** Starting tomorrow and for two days, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – which is comprised of 34 rich and industrialized western countries – is holding a meeting on the future of the Internet Economy. The final text of the communiqué it will issue at the end of this two-day event will decide either in favour of the rights of citizens, or the repressive policies of powerful corporate actors defended by a few governments. The history of the Internet is at a turning point, and the OECD member countries have to take sides. On one hand, the trend for repressive policies has never been so strong, with the ACTA agreement1, the G8 conclusions2 and the EU strategy3 for the future copyright willing to hand out police and justice missions to Internet companies, with an inevitable impact on freedom of expression online. In this scenario, machines at the heart of the network would be configured to decide what is “lawful” or not4, denying the right to a fair trial to citizens and negating the very essence of justice. On the other hand, and in total opposition, is the report by UN rapporteur for the protection of freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, which favours the protection of fundamental freedoms over copyright enforcement and policing of the Internet5. La Quadrature du Net's proposals6 for fostering fundamental freedoms online, access to a free infrastructure and the free flow of information go in the same direction. “The OECD governments' conclusions will show if this institution is really useful to the general interest, or if it serves the interest of the small number of governments who keep on pushing for the entertainment industries' repressive and conservative policies. Unfortunately, the list of panel participants7 suggests that the OECD may have already taken the side of big corporations seeking to control the Net. The OECD's legitimacy can only come if its member countries stand up to protect our rights and a free, universal internet infrastructure over private interests.” concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net. * Références * 1. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA 2. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/frances-g8-focuses-on-control-and-restrictio… 3. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/eu-commission-sticks-to-flawed-copyright-rep… 4. The so-called “voluntary agreements” that entertainment industries want to force upon the Internet intermediaries in order to have them implement “measures to deter further infringement”, inevitably amounting to censorship mechanisms within the network. 5. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/un-report-on-freedom-of-expression-bashes-g8… 6. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/proposal 7. Participants include representatives from Vivendi-Universal, Fox, AT&T, Alcatel-Lucent, Verizon, etc. http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3746,en_21571361_47081080_47122335_1_1_1_… ** About la Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that promotes the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations : http://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-squaring-net-la-quadrature-du-n… ** Press contact and press room ** Jérémie Zimmermann, jz(a)laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room ----- +info http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/fcforum_discussion ---- -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Reflecting on OpenDefinition.org in the light of definition of free and open infrastructure, and vice-versa
by Michel Bauwens 27 Jun '11

27 Jun '11

I should be there Mayo, by the way, any chance we can still get your article on the spanish mobilizations 'not being p2p', as we discussed earlier? sorry for insisting, but I really value your insights, Michel On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster(a)eui.eu> wrote: > Hello to everyone! > > I would like to bring to your attention a workshop which is taking place > during the Okcon. In short, the plan is reflecting on OpenDefinition.org in > the light of definition of free and open infrastructure from the Fcforum > 2010, and vice-versa. It would be fantastic to have the input from people in > this e-lists involved on the Opendefinition. > > Okcon workshop: Defining (and synerging) free and open infrastructure for > open online collaboration - July 1st at 12:30 in Workshop II > > The workshop will address the legal, technical, governing and economical > conditions for free and open infrastructure for open online collaboration. > We will build upon Fcforum 2010 definition of free and open infrastructure ( > http://fcforum.net/en/sustainable-models-for-creativity/how-to-manual#colla…) > importantly aiming to cross and synergy with the work of the open definition > of the Open Knowledge Foundation, and the inputs of the people attending the > workshop. > > Further presentation of the activity here: > http://okcon.org/2011/programme/defining-and-synerging-free-and-open-infras… > Definition of free and open infrastructure Fcforum 2010: > http://fcforum.net/en/sustainable-models-for-creativity/how-to-manual#colla… > Open definition Okfn: http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ > > Please let me know if any of you plan to attend and/or would like to do a > short introductory intervention to warm up the discussion. > > Thank you in advance. Have a nice day! Mayo > > «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·» > «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·» > «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·» > > Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info > > Ph.D European University Institute > Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. > Autonomous University of Barcelona. > Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of > Catalonia (UOC). > Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of > California, Berkeley. > Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation > > http://www.onlinecreation.info > E-mail: mayo.fuster(a)eui.eu > Skype: mayoneti > Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748 > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

2 2

Fwd: Book Review on the filter bubble
by Michel Bauwens 27 Jun '11

27 Jun '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Quilligan <jbquilligan(a)comcast.net> Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM A dystopian view of online freedoms Review by Christopher Caldwell Published: June 26 2011 22:41 | Last updated: June 26 2011 22:41 For at least a decade people have been predicting that the internet, as it matured, would become a more personalised experience for its users. MIT technology expert Nicholas Negroponte saw people sampling television and newspapers, rigging up a “Daily Me” to fit their curiosity. The Chicago professor (and later White House regulator) Cass Sunstein was more pessimistic. He worried that a tailor-made web experience would isolate citizens, turning the internet into a tawdry, ideological, anti-intellectual place. People would figure out what they liked and gorge themselves on it. But for better or for worse, it was assumed, this personalisation would be carried out by the free users of an open, democratic internet. *The Filter Bubble*, by the internet political activist Eli Pariser, is the story of how that didn’t happen. It is “the filtering goliaths”, as Pariser calls them – Google, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook and others – who set the rules of personalisation. You may think you are using their search engines but they are actually using you. Your surfing habits and mouse-clicks reveal what news you want to see, what products you want to buy and what kind of arguments will close any sale. Advertisers are getting better and better at using this information to entice and exploit. “Personalised filters play to the most compulsive parts of you,” Pariser writes. The internet is not personalised the way a bespoke suit is personalised – to better fit your particular tastes. It is personalised the way a blackmail note is personalised – to better fit your particular vulnerabilities. This danger was well understood by the pioneers of search. When Larry Page and Sergey Brin were developing Google, they hoped such companies would stay in the non-profit sector. “We expect that advertising-funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers,” they wrote, “and away from the needs of consumers.” They were right, but they were unable to resist the lure of advertising-driven search themselves, so that is the world we have. The internet we were promised bears little relation to the one we got. We once thought that anonymity would allow users to experiment and explore. But since identifying peoples’ predilections is so profitable, companies are now hard at work “de- anonymising” the web. Newspapers and other media, as Pariser sees it, must reinvent themselves as “behavioural data companies”. On the one hand, this might make us safer – an internet data-tracking and marketing company called Acxiom turned up more information on 11 of the 19 September 11 hijackers than the entire US government was able to. But Pariser fears that “the new, personalised Web may no longer be as well-suited for creative discovery as it once was”. A second problem is asymmetry of information. The search goliaths know more about their customers than their customers know about them, especially in the US. There, the law does not require data-sifting companies to tell customers what data has been gathered on them. “It’s an entirely reasonable expectation,” Pariser writes, “that data that users provide to companies ought to be available to us.” Right on. Pariser is a rambling writer. He tends to answer questions by flinging anecdotes at them. His book lacks an overarching argument. What it has, though, is a solid moral compass and an appealing dystopian bent. Pariser is an excellent debunker of internet clichés. Bill Clinton was wrong, he shows, to claim that China’s efforts to crack down on the internet were “sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall”. Governments can control the web much more easily than we think. The much-vaunted “cloud” consists of only a handful of companies, which is what made it such a simple matter to take WikiLeaks offline in 2010. More disturbing, privacy laws have not caught up with technology, and most people’s e-mails pass through unprotected constitutional space – the servers of, say, Yahoo, Gmail and Hotmail. And see how much privacy will remain, once the ability to search faces easily gets added to the internet. “We need to start thinking of personal data as a kind of personal property,” Pariser writes. If he is correct – and he is – then what we think of as a question of technology is actually a question of justice. Why is it, for example, that, “while it’s illegal to use Brad Pitt’s image to sell a watch without his permission, Facebook is free to use your name to sell one to your friends”? Pariser comes as close as anyone has to explaining the misgivings that a lot of internet users feel. Boon though it is, there is something about the web as it is now exists that threatens to make us less creative, less productive and less free. *The writer is an FT columnist* -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0